Controlled Demolition – A Peer-Reviewed Scientific Analysis of the World Trade Center Collapses by Europhysics News

For over a decade, citizens of the United States and people from around the world have been handed a story about the events of September 11, 2001. We have been compelled by mainstream media to accept this explanation as though it was the most reasonable, the most scientific, and indisputable explanation in existence. Yet along with this supposedly scientific information, there was another message.

It has become common among modern corporate rhetoric to ridicule, demean, and dismiss anything alternative to the message which corporate sources hand us. Any mainstream explanation of events, no matter how inconsistent or nonsensical the explanation may be, we the common people are expected to accept it simply because it comes from a supposedly reliable authority. This is not an intelligent way of communication or thought.

Any and every segment of information we encounter as grown adults requires a level of diligent examination in order to be determined valid. There are no exceptions to this rule for mature and responsible adults. However, this does not reflect the modern expectation of social conformity in today’s society. In modern times, we are expected to keep our head down, to never ask questions that rock the boat, and to never speak up if we notice inconsistencies. If we do speak up, we are often attacked.

This attack does not come from some overlord, or a tyrannical dictator fixated on control. This attack comes from the very people around us—the people we know and who supposedly trust and respect us, granted we conform just as they do. However, if we deviate from the assigned societal script, we receive the attack. To be clear, within this article we plan to deviate—a lot, not from reason, not from evidence, and not from sanity as some may claim, but from societal fear of controversial and yet provable information.

Getting Down to It

It is common for most traditional Americans to claim that they live in a “free country.” However, the regular societal control we receive from our peers seems to prove otherwise. In freedom, we think, act, and speak for ourselves (granted that freedom does not encroach on the freedoms of others), but in our modern thought-controlled society, this is not so. This situation is not defined as “free,” by any stretch of the imagination. Let’s consider the common thought about 9/11.

The events of September 11, 2001 have been used as an excuse to launch one of the most violent, one of the most internationally hazardous and destructive campaigns this world has seen in decades. The infamous War on Terror has been the bane of existence for millions of people in multiple nations, both in the United States, and around the world. The 9/11 attacks were claimed as the reason that justified this international war machine for the past 15 years. Yet the original story which was forcibly dictated to the people was never completely supported.

The official explanation of the 9/11 collapses has been a protected absolute in the mouths of American politicians ever since the attacks took place. Yet, no secondary investigation or independent scientific verification for the World Trade collapses on 9/11 was ever allowed—that is until now.

For over a decade, a team of professionals known as the “Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth” have been hard at work researching and re-investigating the science behind the collapse of the World Trade towers. Much of the data they found contradicted the official explanation from the NIST and the 9/11 Commission. Yet this data was so convincing that a prestigious scientific journal chose to publish their findings in a ground-shaking article titled “15 Years Later: On the Physics of High-Rise Building Collapses.” This article detailed the scientific findings researched and compiled over years of time.

When considering the publication of these studies in a scientific periodical, it is important for us to note the significance of this study. This quality of publication represents some of the most coveted levels of current scientific research. No research reaches these scientific publications unless they are verified by multiple rigorous scientific studies—a process known as peer review. So when we read this information, we can be assured that it is not random information being thrown around like the average internet disinformation site.

When a scientific journal publishes any story, they stake their reputation on that story. Consequently, these articles are typically high in quality. So without further adieu, here is Europhysics News on the World Trade collapses.

In August 2002, the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) launched what would become a six-year investigation of the three building failures that occurred on September 11, 2001 (9/11): the well-known collapses of the World Trade Center (WTC) Twin Towers that morning and the lesser-known collapse late that afternoon of the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7, which was not struck by an airplane. NIST conducted its investigation based on the stated premise that the “WTC Towers and WTC 7 [were] the only known cases of total structural collapse in high-rise buildings where fires played a significant role.”

Indeed, neither before nor since 9/11 have fires caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise—nor has any other natural event, with the exception of the 1985 Mexico City earthquake, which toppled a 21-story office building. Otherwise, the only phenomenon capable of collapsing such buildings completely has been by way of a procedure known as controlled demolition, whereby explosives or other devices are used to bring down a structure intentionally. Although NIST finally concluded after several years of investigation that all three collapses on 9/11 were due primarily to fires, fifteen years after the event a growing number of architects, engineers, and scientists are unconvinced by that explanation.

This excerpt basically spells out the intent behind the article. There is no getting around the controversy this proposal may foster. However, as in any situation, we must thoroughly evaluate all possibilities of occurrence if we truly care about getting to the truth. This does not include any knee-jerk reaction which some may have the moment one stops repeating the assigned social script.

In light of our responsibility to thorough examination, let’s consider a few things. Since 2001, there have been multiple high-rise fires reported in mainstream media which have occurred around the world. All of these involved significant damage and thousands of dollars in repair work. Yet not a single one of them ever result in the type of structural collapse we saw in 2001—not one. Yet this total-collapse phenomenon happened three times in the same day in the same city on September 11, and immediately afterward, the public was told not to question the events. This does not add up.

Let’s consider one of the fires which consumed a portion of a hotel in Dubai. This article comes to us from the Chicago Tribune from July, 2016 and gives details on the significance of this fire.

A residential skyscraper in Dubai caught fire on Wednesday in the densely populated Marina district, sending plumes of smoke into the air and pieces of the building’s facade tumbling below.

The afternoon blaze engulfed the upper floors of the Sulafa Tower. The fire quickly spread to other floors and the sides of the building with flames engulfing more than 30 stories and scorching the exterior of the building. It appeared to have spread to the interiors of some of the apartments, as well.

Nora Maki, who lives across the street, says the flames “spread like wildfire” but that firefighters “did an amazing job” of getting it under control. Firefighters could be seen on some of the balconies trying to reach out to extinguish the fire.

The fire did not cause any casualties and civil defense crews evacuated all residents to ensure their safety, according to the official Twitter account of the Dubai Media Office.

It is the latest in a number of skyscraper fires across the United Arab Emirates in recent months. The most prominent was a New Year’s inferno at a 63-story residence near the world’s tallest tower, the Burj Khalifa. Police also blamed the fire at the upscale The Address Downtown Dubai building on faulty wiring.

According to this report, the fire alarm was pulled at about 2 am, local time. After the fire was extinguished, residents were allowed to return to their homes at 4:30 am. This is one of numerous high-rise fires which have burned for hours on end, and yet we see zero collapse and zero structural damage. We do not see these buildings free-fall collapsing into their own footprint. The stability of this hotel displays what modern skyscrapers are supposed to do given that no explosives are used to bring them down. However, even though the scientific conclusion has been stated, let’s withhold our conclusion for the moment and examine further.

Those who are familiar with the extensive research of the Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth will find the above excerpt familiar. On this subject, below is the short video of the research of the Architects and Engineers included in the well-known documentary.

Architects and Engineers: Solving the Mystery of Building 7 – Ed Asner

Upon initial independent examination, the flawed nature of the official explanation of Building 7 would seem obvious. However, to those who worship the words proclaimed by authorities, to contradict the official explanation was considered blasphemous. I would be willing to bet that if this official story was never handed to the public, no one would have come to the conclusion on their own.

One could easily search on YouTube for videos on building implosions in cities such as Las Vegas, NV where these implosions are turned into public spectacles with pyrotechnics included. One could easily watch a number of these implosions and then watch the collapse of Building 7 and see the exact same speed and dynamic of collapse. However, for some, the compulsion to conform and submit to the words of acting authority is just too strong. However, this is changing at an ever-increasing pace.

A Series of Unlikely Events

The next section of the article is very effective in further proving the point of the unlikelihood of an unassisted collapse on 9/11/01. According to the data, these collapses were not chance occurrences, nor were they caused by jet fuel alone. Given what we know about modern architecture, there is no sense in accepting the official story of the 9/11 collapses. However, instead of talking on the specifics, I will let the professionals speak. Here is Europhysics in the section titled, “Preventing high-rise failures.”

Steel-framed high-rises have endured large fires without suffering total collapse for four main reasons:

1) Fires typically are not hot enough and do not last long enough in any single area to generate enough energy to heat the large structural members to the point where they fail (the temperature at which structural steel loses enough strength to fail is dependent on the factor of safety used in the design. In the case of WTC 7, for example, the factor of safety was generally 3 or higher. Here, 67% of the strength would need to be lost for failure to ensue, which would require the steel to be heated to about 660°C);

2) Most high-rises have fire suppression systems (water sprinklers), which further prevent a fire from releasing sufficient energy to heat the steel to a critical failure state;

3) Structural members are protected by fireproofing materials, which are designed to prevent them from reaching failure temperatures within specified time periods;

4) Steel-framed high-rises are designed to be highly redundant structural systems. Thus, if a localized failure occurs, it does not result in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

Throughout history, three steel-framed high-rises are known to have suffered partial collapses due to fires; none of those led to a total collapse. Countless other steelframed high-rises have experienced large, long-lasting fires without suffering either partial or total collapse (see, for example, Fig. 1a and 1b) [1].

WTC 5 is an example of how steelframed high-rises typically perform in large fires. It burned for over eight hours on September 11, 2001, and did not suffer a total collapse (Source: FEmA).

Here we see further proof that steel-framed structures do not suffer total collapse due to the fact that they are designed to withstand such forces. Let’s also consider the common argument that the buildings were not designed to handle the impact of the Boeing 767s which supposedly crashed into them. It is claimed by those who still subscribe to mainstream supposition that jet fuel in one section of a building can cause the entirety of the supports of that building to catastrophically fail simultaneously. Let’s also consider the fact that Building 7, which was never struck by a plane, crumbled at free-fall speed in the exact same way which the twin towers did.

Building 7 ended up pancaking into its own footprint just like the
twin towers. The collapse reached free-fall speed and completed in
roughly 7 seconds.

Once again, we are left with the only logical explanation for buildings which pancake into their own footprints. This is three buildings crumbling in the exact same way, in the exact same city, on the exact same date. Never in the history of architecture has anything like this ever happened by mere chance. According to objective scientific analysis, this happened by design. Let’s continue with the article.

CONTINUE READING @ discerningthemystery2000plus.blogspot.com/
_________________________Stillness in the Storm Editor’s note: Did you find a spelling error or grammar mistake? Do you think this article needs a correction or update? Or do you just have some feedback? Send us an email at [email protected]. Thank you for reading.

Stillness in the Storm DISCLAIMER: All statements, claims, views and opinions that appear anywhere on this site, whether stated as theories or absolute facts, are always presented by Stillness in the Storm as unverified—and should be personally fact checked and discerned by you, the reader. Any opinions or statements herein presented are not necessarily promoted, endorsed, or agreed to by Stillness, those who work with Stillness, or those who read Stillness. Any belief or conclusion gleaned from content on this site is solely the responsibility of you the reader to substantiate. And any actions taken by those who read material on this site is solely the responsibility of the acting party. You are encouraged to think carefully and do your own research. Nothing on this site is meant to be believed without question or personal appraisal.